Top

Surgical Endoscopy

Published in:

13-02-2024 | Review Article

Cruroplasty with or without mesh? A systematic literature review with a novel time-organized proportion meta-analysis

Authors: Andrés R. Latorre-Rodríguez, Ajay Rajan, Sumeet K. Mittal

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 4/2024

Abstract

Background

Improved outcomes with the use of non-absorbable mesh (NAM) for inguinal hernia repairs led to its rapid adoption for hiatal hernia (HH) repairs; however, feared complications occurred, and the trend shifted toward using absorbable mesh (AM). We aimed to analyze the literature assessing objective HH recurrence rates after primary laparoscopic cruroplasty with or without the use of different mesh types.

Methods

A systematic literature review with both pairwise and time-organized proportion meta-analyses of articles published between January 1993 and September 2022 was performed using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Taylor & Francis databases to identify relevant studies comparing groups undergoing cruroplasty with suture repair (SR) alone, AM, NAM, or partially absorbable mesh (PAM). Studies documenting an objective follow-up ≥ 6 months were included. The primary outcome was the HH recurrence rate confirmed by barium esophagram or upper GI endoscopy.

Results

A total of 34 studies met the inclusion criteria, including 6 randomized clinical trials, 25 retrospectives studies, and 3 prospective cohort studies. A total of 2170 subjects underwent laparoscopic HH repair and completed an objective follow-up ≥ 6 months after surgery; the objective recurrence rate was 20.8% (99/477) at a mean follow-up of 25.8 ± 16.4 months for the SR group, 20.6% (244/1187) at 28.1 ± 13.8 months for the AM group, 13.7% (65/475) at 30.8 ± 15.3 months for the NAM group, and 0% (0/31) at 32.5 ± 13.5 months for the PAM group. However, the pairwise meta-analysis revealed that overall mesh use was not superior to SR in preventing long-term HH recurrence.

Conclusion

The use of AM does not appear to reduce HH recurrence compared to SR alone. Although the data favors NAM to decrease objective HH recurrence in the mid-term, the long-term (≥ 48 months) recurrence rate was similar with or without any type of mesh.

Available only for authorised users

Stylopoulos N, Rattner DW (2005) The history of hiatal hernia surgery: from Bowditch to laparoscopy. Ann Surg 241:185–193PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Hashemi M, Peters JH, DeMeester TR, Huprich JE, Quek M, Hagen JA, Crookes PF, Theisen J, DeMeester SR, Sillin LF, Bremner CG (2000) Laparoscopic repair of large type III hiatal hernia: objective followup reveals high recurrence rate. J Am Coll Surg 190:553–560PubMedCrossRef

Vorst AL, Kaoutzanis C, Carbonell AM, Franz MG (2015) Evolution and advances in laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair. World J Gastrointest Surg 7:293–305PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Frantzides CT, Madan AK, Carlson MA, Stavropoulos GP (2002) A prospective, randomized trial of laparoscopic polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) patch repair vs simple cruroplasty for large hiatal hernia. Arch Surg 137:649–652PubMedCrossRef

Granderath FA, Schweiger UM, Kamolz T, Asche KU, Pointner R (2005) Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication with prosthetic hiatal closure reduces postoperative intrathoracic wrap herniation: preliminary results of a prospective randomized functional and clinical study. Arch Surg 140:40–48PubMedCrossRef

Oelschlager BK, Pellegrini CA, Hunter JG, Brunt ML, Soper NJ, Sheppard BC, Polissar NL, Neradilek MB, Mitsumori LM, Rohrmann CA, Swanstrom LL (2011) Biologic prosthesis to prevent recurrence after laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair: long-term follow-up from a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial. J Am Coll Surg 213:461–468PubMedCrossRef

Kohn GP, Price RR, DeMeester SR, Zehetner J, Muensterer OJ, Awad Z, Mittal SK, Richardson WS, Stefanidis D, Fanelli RD (2013) Guidelines for the management of hiatal hernia. Surg Endosc 27:4409–4428PubMedCrossRef

Elango S, Perumalsamy S, Ramachandran K, Vadodaria K (2017) Mesh materials and hernia repair. Biomedicine (Taipe(i) 7:16CrossRef

Stadlhuber RJ, Sherif AE, Mittal SK, Fitzgibbons RJ Jr, Michael Brunt L, Hunter JG, Demeester TR, Swanstrom LL, Daniel Smith C, Filipi CJ (2009) Mesh complications after prosthetic reinforcement of hiatal closure: a 28-case series. Surg Endosc 23:1219–1226PubMedCrossRef

10.

Baylón K, Rodríguez-Camarillo P, Elías-Zúñiga A, Díaz-Elizondo JA, Gilkerson R, Lozano K (2017) Past, Present and future of surgical meshes: a Review. Membranes (Basel) 7(3):14

11.

Oelschlager BK, Pellegrini CA, Hunter J, Soper N, Brunt M, Sheppard B, Jobe B, Polissar N, Mitsumori L, Nelson J, Swanstrom L (2006) Biologic prosthesis reduces recurrence after laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair: a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial. Ann Surg 244:481–490PubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Pfluke JM, Parker M, Bowers SP, Asbun HJ, Daniel Smith C (2012) Use of mesh for hiatal hernia repair: a survey of SAGES members. Surg Endosc 26:1843–1848PubMedCrossRef

13.

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ (2008) GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336:924–926PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

14.

National Institutes of Health (2021) Study quality assessment tools. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

15.

Abdelmoaty WF, Dunst CM, Filicori F, Zihni AM, Davila-Bradley D, Reavis KM, Swanstrom LL, DeMeester SR (2020) Combination of surgical technique and bioresorbable mesh reinforcement of the crural repair leads to low early hernia recurrence rates with laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair. J Gastrointest Surg 24:1477–1481PubMedCrossRef

16.

Aiolfi A, Cavalli M, Sozzi A, Lombardo F, Lanzaro A, Panizzo V, Bonitta G, Mendogni P, Bruni PG, Campanelli G, Bona D (2022) Medium-term safety and efficacy profile of paraesophageal hernia repair with Phasix-ST(®) mesh: a single-institution experience. Hernia 26:279–286PubMedCrossRef

17.

Alicuben ET, Worrell SG, DeMeester SR (2014) Resorbable biosynthetic mesh for crural reinforcement during hiatal hernia repair. Am Surg 80:1030–1033PubMedCrossRef

18.

Armijo PR, Krause C, Xu T, Shostrom V, Oleynikov D (2021) Surgical and clinical outcomes comparison of mesh usage in laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair. Surg Endosc 35:2724–2730PubMedCrossRef

19.

Asti E, Lovece A, Bonavina L, Milito P, Sironi A, Bonitta G, Siboni S (2016) Laparoscopic management of large hiatus hernia: five-year cohort study and comparison of mesh-augmented versus standard crura repair. Surg Endosc 30:5404–5409PubMedCrossRef

20.

Brandalise A, Aranha NC, Brandalise NA (2012) The polypropylene mesh in the laparoscopic repair of large hiatal hernias: technical aspects. Arq Bras Cir Dig 25:224–228PubMedCrossRef

21.

Gebhart A, Vu S, Armstrong C, Smith BR, Nguyen NT (2013) Initial outcomes of laparoscopic paraesophageal hiatal hernia repair with mesh. Am Surg 79:1017–1021PubMedCrossRef

22.

Gordon AC, Gillespie C, Son J, Polhill T, Leibman S, Smith GS (2018) Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic large hiatus hernia repair with nonabsorbable mesh. Dis Esophagus. https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/dox156CrossRefPubMed

23.

Hazebroek EJ, Koak Y, Berry H, Leibman S, Smith GS (2009) Critical evaluation of a novel DualMesh repair for large hiatal hernias. Surg Endosc 23:193–196PubMedCrossRef

24.

Hazebroek EJ, Ng A, Yong DH, Berry H, Leibman S, Smith GS (2008) Evaluation of lightweight titanium-coated polypropylene mesh (TiMesh) for laparoscopic repair of large hiatal hernias. Surg Endosc 22:2428–2432PubMedCrossRef

25.

Iossa A, Silecchia G (2019) Mid-term safety profile evaluation of Bio-A absorbable synthetic mesh as cruroplasty reinforcement. Surg Endosc 33:3783–3789PubMedCrossRef

26.

Jones R, Simorov A, Lomelin D, Tadaki C, Oleynikov D (2015) Long-term outcomes of radiologic recurrence after paraesophageal hernia repair with mesh. Surg Endosc 29:425–430PubMedCrossRef

27.

Khaled I, Priego P, Faisal M, Cuadrado M, García-Moreno F, Ballestero A, Galindo J, Lobo E (2019) Assessment of short-term outcome with TiO(2) mesh in laparoscopic repair of large paraesophageal hiatal hernias. BMC Surg 19:156PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

28.

Korwar V, Adjepong S, Pattar J, Sigurdsson A (2019) Biological mesh repair of paraesophageal hernia: an analysis of our outcomes. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 29:1446–1450PubMedCrossRef

29.

Müller-Stich BP, Holzinger F, Kapp T, Klaiber C (2006) Laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair: long-term outcome with the focus on the influence of mesh reinforcement. Surg Endosc 20:380–384PubMedCrossRef

30.

Panici Tonucci T, Asti E, Sironi A, Ferrari D, Bonavina L (2020) Safety and efficacy of crura augmentation with phasix ST mesh for large hiatal hernia: 3-year single-center experience. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 30:369–372PubMedCrossRef

31.

Priego Jiménez P, Salvador Sanchís JL, Angel V, Escrig-Sos J (2014) Short-term results for laparoscopic repair of large paraesophageal hiatal hernias with Gore Bio A® mesh. Int J Surg 12:794–797PubMedCrossRef

32.

Priego P, Perez de Oteyza J, Galindo J, Carda P, García-Moreno F, Rodríguez Velasco G, Lobo E (2017) Long-term results and complications related to Crurasoft(®) mesh repair for paraesophageal hiatal hernias. Hernia 21:291–298PubMedCrossRef

33.

Schmidt E, Shaligram A, Reynoso JF, Kothari V, Oleynikov D (2014) Hiatal hernia repair with biologic mesh reinforcement reduces recurrence rate in small hiatal hernias. Dis Esophagus 27:13–17PubMedCrossRef

34.

Strange PS (2003) Small intestinal submucosa for laparoscopic repair of large paraesophageal hiatal hernias: a preliminary report. Surg Technol Int 11:141–143PubMed

35.

Wang B, Zhang W, Shan CX, Liu S, Jiang ZG, Qiu M (2016) Long-term outcomes of cruroplasty reinforcement with composite versus biologic mesh for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Surg Endosc 30:2865–2872PubMedCrossRef

36.

Wang CQ, Tran T, Montera B, Karlnoski R, Feldman J, Albrink MH, Velanovich V (2019) Symptomatic, Radiological, and quality of life outcome of paraesophageal hernia repair with urinary bladder extracellular surgical matrix: comparison with primary repair. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 29:182–186PubMedCrossRef

37.

Watkins JR, Truitt MS, Osman H, Jeyarajah RD (2018) Biologic keyhole mesh in hiatal hernia repair. JSLS 22(1):e2017.00086PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

38.

Zaninotto G, Portale G, Costantini M, Fiamingo P, Rampado S, Guirroli E, Nicoletti L, Ancona E (2007) Objective follow-up after laparoscopic repair of large type III hiatal hernia. Assessment of safety and durability. World J Surg 31:2177–2183PubMedCrossRef

39.

Zügel N, Lang RA, Kox M, Hüttl TP (2009) Severe complication of laparoscopic mesh hiatoplasty for paraesophageal hernia. Surg Endosc 23:2563–2567PubMedCrossRef

40.

Analatos A, Håkanson BS, Lundell L, Lindblad M, Thorell A (2020) Tension-free mesh versus suture-alone cruroplasty in antireflux surgery: a randomized, double-blind clinical trial. Br J Surg 107:1731–1740PubMed

41.

Carlson MA, Richards CG, Frantzides CT (1999) Laparoscopic prosthetic reinforcement of hiatal herniorrhaphy. Dig Surg 16:407–410PubMedCrossRef

42.

Ilyashenko VV, Grubnyk VV, Grubnik VV (2018) Laparoscopic management of large hiatal hernia: mesh method with the use of ProGrip mesh versus standard crural repair. Surg Endosc 32:3592–3598PubMedCrossRef

43.

Oor JE, Roks DJ, Koetje JH, Broeders JA, van Westreenen HL, Nieuwenhuijs VB, Hazebroek EJ (2018) Randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair using sutures versus sutures reinforced with non-absorbable mesh. Surg Endosc 32:4579–4589PubMedCrossRef

44.

Watson DI, Thompson SK, Devitt PG, Aly A, Irvine T, Woods SD, Gan S, Game PA, Jamieson GG (2020) Five year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic repair of very large hiatus hernia with sutures versus absorbable versus nonabsorbable mesh. Ann Surg 272:241–247PubMedCrossRef

45.

Braghetto I, Korn O, Csendes A, Burdiles P, Valladares H, Brunet L (2010) Postoperative results after laparoscopic approach for treatment of large hiatal hernias: is mesh always needed? Is the addition of an antireflux procedure necessary? Int Surg 95:80–87PubMed

46.

Massullo JM, Singh TP, Dunnican WJ, Binetti BR (2012) Preliminary study of hiatal hernia repair using polyglycolic acid: trimethylene carbonate mesh. Jsls 16:55–59PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

47.

Rosen MJ, Borao FJ, Binenbaum SJ, Roth JS, Gillian GK, Gould J, Heniford BT (2019) A multi-center, prospective clinical trial of a hepatic derived porcine surgical mesh for the laparoscopic repair of symptomatic paraesophageal hernias. Am J Surg 218:315–322PubMedCrossRef

48.

Sfara A, Dumitrascu DL (2019) The management of hiatal hernia: an update on diagnosis and treatment. Med Pharm Rep 92:321–325PubMedPubMedCentral

49.

Bitner DP, F. F, (2022) Mesh or no mesh in anti-reflux surgery. Mini-invasive Surg 6:46CrossRef

50.

Tam V, Winger DG, Nason KS (2016) A systematic review and meta-analysis of mesh vs suture cruroplasty in laparoscopic large hiatal hernia repair. Am J Surg 211:226–238PubMedCrossRef

51.

Zhang C, Liu D, Li F, Watson DI, Gao X, Koetje JH, Luo T, Yan C, Du X, Wang Z (2017) Systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic mesh versus suture repair of hiatus hernia: objective and subjective outcomes. Surg Endosc 31:4913–4922PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

52.

Rausa E, Manfredi R, Kelly ME, Bianco F, Aiolfi A, Bonitta G, Zappa MA, Lucianetti A (2021) Prosthetic reinforcement in hiatal hernia repair, does mesh material matter? A systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 31:1118–1123PubMedCrossRef

53.

Angeramo CA, Schlottmann F (2022) Laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair: to mesh or not to mesh. Syst Rev Meta-Anal Ann Surg 275:67–72

Title: Cruroplasty with or without mesh? A systematic literature review with a novel time-organized proportion meta-analysis
Authors: Andrés R. Latorre-Rodríguez
Ajay Rajan
Sumeet K. Mittal
Publication date: 13-02-2024
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 4/2024
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-10683-4

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Cruroplasty with or without mesh? A systematic literature review with a novel time-organized proportion meta-analysis

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2024

Timing of readmissions for complications following emergency colectomy: follow-up beyond post-operative day 30 matters

Laparoscopic versus open surgery in obstructive colorectal cancer patients following stents placement: a comprehensive meta-analysis of cohort studies

Variable practice is superior to self-directed training for laparoscopic simulator training: a randomized trial

Medical therapy has similar hemostatic efficacy with endoscopic treatment for PUB patients with adherent clot (FIIb ulcers)

Patients’ perspectives on weight recurrence after bariatric surgery: a single-center survey

Correction: Implementation of 3D printed superior mesenteric vascular models for surgical planning and/or navigation in right colectomy with extended D3 mesenterectomy: comparison of virtual and physical models to the anatomy found at surgery